Research Administration Office

University of California

April 22, 1981

Memo Operating Requirement

No. 26-81

CONTRACT AND GRANT OFFICERS:

Corporate Contract and Grant Information System -- Clarification of Requirements

This is to add further emphasis and clarification to two procedures concerning reporting requirements for the revised Corporate Contract and Grant System which were covered in the March 25, l981 memo from Jim Dolgonas to JOG members (copy attached), and in revised Appendix C, Table I, page 12. Those procedures are as follows:

1. "The Award Number is to be unique and non-varying over time for any given award."

Comment:

Unlike the old system the requirement to include modification identifiers with award numbers beginning with the third quarter, FY 80-81 no longer applies. Note examples of recording the following award numbers:

In reference to example #4 which typifies an HHS grant award number, note that the "parent" award number should be recorded without identification of the "-01 budget year" suffix when reporting to the Corporate System. Since the specifications of the new system call for the establishment of a single award record file for each active project, it is important that in subsequent quarters or years when updates are reported, to match exactly the original award number and the dashes and spaces associated with the "parent" award number. Otherwise, multiple award records would be created, needlessly, for the same project.

No attempt should be made to "correct" award numbers with modification identifiers previously entered under the old system.

2. "Multiple actions for a given award must have non-duplicating Award Form Preparation Dates."

Comment:

One of the new edit routines for the revised system calls for rejection of multiple award actions for the same project if the Award Form Preparation Dates are identical. (Only one record will be accepted). This edit procedure was conceived to avoid unintentional duplications of singular award transactions. Moreover, we view the probability for multiple award transactions for the same project being processed on the same day as remote.

Nonetheless, whenever it becomes necessary to record legitimate multiple award transactions on the same day (perhaps due to a severe backlog problem) you must arbitrarily vary the Award Form Preparation Dates for each transaction in order that all transactions can be accepted.

In recent months several questions have been raised by campus contacts in regard to the December 1980 Contract &amp Grant Campus Specifications. Aside from these questions, three non-substantive revisions to the specifications are necessary, This letter is to clarify and summarize answers to key questions and to supply specifications changes where required. Also summarized here are additional edits to campus data consistent with the existing specifications. These edits will be formally documented after 3rd-quarter 1981 data is processed. Several of the issues addressed in this letter which are of a functional nature are being simultaneously communicated by the Systemwide C&amp G Office to campus C&amp G Offices.

The following points of emphasis and clarification to the campus specifications should be noted:

1. Proposal data for a given proposal should be submitted only if it occurs in the initial reporting period for that proposal) (see 3.2.2 of the December 1980 specifications).

2. If multiple award actions occur within a quarter (or even within a month) for a given award, these actions should not be summarized into one transaction. Furthermore, to be processed correctly, multiple actions for a given award must have non-duplicating Award Form Preparation Dates (date of preparation of the original document or change document) in chronological sequence (see 3.2.2).

3. Values for Award Amount and Project Cost-Proposed are always to be the amount of change rather than the latest (cumulative) value for the Award or Proposal (see 3.2.2).

4. The Award Number field and the Proposal Identifying Number (data elements 11 and 12) are to be unique and non-varying over time for any given award or proposal. The practice of encoding explanatory information such as 'mod 2' or '-SUP1' or '/02' is to be discontinued. Practices of placing dashes or embedded blanks between portions of Award and Proposal Numbers should be standardized on each campus so that multiple transactions within a quarter or in subsequent quarters or years will exactly match the original numbers.

Actual changes to specifications are limited to the following points:

1. Data set names for tape files sent by campuses to Systemwide have been revised.

2. Data element 02 is re-named UC Location Code-C&amp G. Code values have changed only for a) the Laboratory of Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, and b) Agriculture and University Services. Only Los Angeles and Systemwide are impacted by the code value change.

3. Data element 29, Transaction Reference Number-C&amp G has been added. This data element, provided at campus option, is to occupy the last six positions on both the Award and Proposal files. It will be printed on edit reports when invalid data is encountered to facilitate identifying the unique source document or system generated transaction causing the error.

The attached pages are to be used to replace their corresponding p. ages in the original specifications-

As testing of the Corporate System has continued, the completeness of the system's edits has been reviewed.

Some new edits are being added, for the April processing. The following "error" edits, resulting in rejected records, will occur in data submitted for 3rd quarter 1981:

1. Award Period End Date precedes Award Period Start Date.

2. Two or more award records with equal Award Form Preparation dates for the same Award number (only one record accepted).

The following "warning" edits, warning of possible errors (or of unusual situations - records are accepted) will occur in 3rd quarter 1981:

1. Project Cost Excessive (Awards &amp Proposals).

2. Matching Funds Over $100,000.

3. Indirect Cost Rate over 100%.

4. Proposal Duration greater than 84 months.

5. Award Period greater than 84 months.

6. Award Form Preparation Date less than two weeks after prior action.

7. Proposal records exactly the same.

8. Excessive increase to award or proposal amount (suspect that amount is not incremental).

9. Cumulative amount of proposal project cost for a proposal is less than zero.

Any questions regarding the specification changes, the points of emphasis and clarification described, or the additional edits should be addressed to Smaran Stockard at (642-8239).